Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31892643›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Experience of and access to maternity care in the UK by immigrant women: a narrative synthesis systematic review.

Gina Marie Awoko Higginbottom, Catrin Evans, Myfanwy Morgan, Kuldip Kaur Bharj, Jeanette Eldridge, Basharat Hussain

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Improving Diversity in Recruitment: Lessons Learned During the REACH Pregnancy Circles Pilot Trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A Co-Produced Health Literacy Programme for Pregnant Women Whose First Language Is Not English: A Qualitative Study of Women's Experiences.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gina Marie Awoko HigginbottomSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK gawoko@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8851-0985
Catrin EvansSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5338-2191
Myfanwy MorganInstitute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Kuldip Kaur BharjDept of Midwifery, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.
Jeanette EldridgeResearch and Learning Services, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Basharat HussainSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/15/55/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One in four births in the UK is to foreign-born women. In 2016, the figure was 28.2%, the highest figure on record, with maternal and perinatal mortality also disproportionately higher for some immigrant women. Our objective was to examine issues of access and experience of maternity care by immigrant women based on a systematic review and narrative synthesis of empirical research. REVIEW

methodsA research librarian designed the search strategies (retrieving literature published from 1990 to end June 2017). We retrieved 45 954 citations and used a screening tool to identify relevance. We searched for grey literature reported in databases/websites. We contacted stakeholders with expertise to identify additional research.

resultsWe identified 40 studies for inclusion: 22 qualitative, 8 quantitative and 10 mixed methods. Immigrant women, particularly asylum-seekers, often booked and accessed antenatal care later than the recommended first 10 weeks. Primary factors included limited English language proficiency, lack of awareness of availability of the services, lack of understanding of the purpose of antenatal appointments, immigration status and income barriers. Maternity care experiences were both positive and negative. Women with positive perceptions described healthcare professionals as caring, confidential and openly communicative in meeting their medical, emotional, psychological and social needs. Those with negative views perceived health professionals as rude, discriminatory and insensitive to their cultural and social needs. These women therefore avoided continuously utilising maternity care.We found few interventions focused on improving maternity care, and the effectiveness of existing interventions have not been scientifically evaluated.

conclusionsThe experiences of immigrant women in accessing and using maternity care services were both positive and negative. Further education and training of health professionals in meeting the challenges of a super-diverse population may enhance quality of care, and the perceptions and experiences of maternity care by immigrant women.

Indexed as

Cultural CompetencyEmigrants and ImmigrantsHealth Services AccessibilityMaternal Health ServicesFemaleHumansNarrationPatient SatisfactionPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeUnited Kingdomimmigrant womenmaternity carenarrative synthesisnavigation and accesssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31892643
PMCPMC6955508
OpenAlexW2997899646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.